Hillary's strategy working; party splits along race lines

[origin1286]

RASMUSSEN: Clinton leads Obama among white voters 41% to 27%...
Obama leads Clinton among African-American voters 66% to 16%...

However, if Hillary can't win Nevada or SC, I expect Obama to close the gap among white supporters.

[maddiejoan]

1. I'd argue it's Obama's strategy

[origin1286]

3. Yes, Obama wants to split the party along racial lines

Did you actually think about that before you posted it?

[maddiejoan]

5. Yes

I did.

[origin1286]

7. So you think Obama wants to...

Burn his bridges the majority group - without whom he CANNOT GET ELECTED - for the sake of getting 100% support from a minority group?

Makes no sense.

If Obama has 100% black support and Hillary has 50% white support, Hillary wins.

[maddiejoan]

13. What bridges would he be burning?

His camp is trying to paint Hillary as a racist.

Seems to be working if the reactions on DU can be used as a barometer.

[origin1286]

18. Whites will rush to defend whites, blacks will rush to defend blacks

Which is more numerous?

[maddiejoan]

23. You are very ignorant

painting someone as a racist will not make whites rush to vote for someone they construe as racist. Just the opposite.

[origin1286]

28. Not if its whites calling her racist

But if its made to seem like blacks are playing the race card...

Most general public whites don't like Sharpton or Jackson. Clinton wants to turn Obama into them.

[maddiejoan]

36. Wow

Hillary must be very powerful if she can make Obama's campaign act in a certain way.

[origin1286]

40. Ah but thats the beauty of it

Anyone who rushes to defend Obama is seen as being part of Obama's campaign in the eyes of the general public. Random radio hosts defending Obama is seen as Obama responding.

You can see it here. Obama himself has said 1 thing on the entire issue, yet some people still try to paint it as Obama playing the race card.

[maddiejoan]

50. I see

so you hold Hillary responsible for the actions of her supporters, but you don't hold Obama responsible for the actions of his supporters.

gotcha.

[origin1286]

51. I don't hold Hillary responsible for things

Said by random everyday supporters not connected to her campaign.

But major donors, advisors, those who have been in direct contact with Hillary - yeah, I do.

You guys are holding Obama responsible for random radio hosts who never met Obama and have nothing to do with the campaign.

[maddiejoan]

52. I'm holding him responsible for this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

[origin1286]

54. That was never given to the media

But it was a stupid memo to write nonetheless.

[maddiejoan]

55. It wasn't?

How did they get it?

[origin1286]

57. Pardon

It was never intended for the media. It was given to an activist iirc.

[maddiejoan]

58. even if you were right

It points at a strategy to paint Clinton as a racist.

[burythehatchet]

60. Geez, hasn't one of you come yet?

[maddiejoan]

62. I did a while ago

But I'm being nice and letting him finish.

[cloudythescribbler]

61. exactly right -- and see my longer comment on this delving further ...

[cloudythescribbler]

59. It isn't only or mainly making BO's camp act in ANY way -- let me explain provokatsiia:

(a Russian slang word that apparently describes this kind of tactic to a 't')

Step (1) Bill Clinton on Nelson Mandela, Hillary Clinton on Dr King & LBJ (a remark a NY TIMES Jan 9 editorial dubbed "peculiar"), Andrew Cuomo on 'shuck and jive', etc

(2) These comments are carefully formulated so as not to be unambiguously racist (a la macaca), but rather to provoke a reaction from some (in the media, in the black community, among progressives) to at the very least comment about their "peculiarity". Thus a discussion of race & racism in connexion with Obama and the election ensues

(3) Most whites are FAR less attuned to these kinds of race-baiting antics than most blacks (in the same way that the average black American knows and understands more about whites than most whites do about blacks -- I know, a massive generalization, but true)
By putting out comments WITH SELF-CONSCIOUS PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY but which are at the same time calculatingly provocative (or "peculiar"), the reaction that ensues is likely to alienate MANY whites, and make them think of Obama as 'another Jesse Jackson', and either vote Hillary or not at all (or perhaps someone else). Note that the reaction of the Obama campaign is NOT even necessary to this dynamic, and is in any case a very small part of it.

(4) As with Willie Horton in 88 (which was much complained of) and the 2000 GOP convention (described in the media as a 'minstrel show'), race is thus successfully injected into the campaign.

(5) As icing on the cake, it helps to have swarms of Obama-bashers, the sort who come out of the woodwork for weeks and months about the McClurkin canard (and I say that as someone bi myself), swarm around the general meme that OBAMA is the one playing the race card, with some (honestly or otherwise, depending on the instance) portraying it as 'equal fault' of both parties. Some are even more clever (and surely more plausible, and here with at least a grain of truth) and portray Obama supporters as 'dupes' who have been successfully manipulated by the Clinton campaign.

But note that these statements would INEVITABLY provoke significant reaction in the black community (as they are calculated to do, AND NOTICE THAT THEY ARE A PATTERN AND NOT A SINGLE "UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT") and in the media, who also will pick up on the pattern.

CONCLUSION -- this whole process needs to be exposed by Obama supporters, including in places like DU, and then brought in the most cogent way to the attention of non-black voters who are at least somewhat open-minded though not committed to Barack Obama.
It is important for Obama supporters("Obamanation" "Obamistas") to get to a point of at least some loose co-ordination in being self conscious as to just WHO the swarm of Obama-bashing trolls are, and even having the courage to put up posts with lists of them. There are said to be pro-Obama trolls, but so far I (who have been following the board closely over the last week while this has been happening) have noticed VERY few. Trolls generally make hit-and-run remarks, insist repeatedly without serious polemic that they are right, and/or gather in support of the MOST offensive and absurd allegations, often giving them 5 or more recommendations.

(I think one change should be that it should NOT be anonymous who made the recommendations)

I also note, given the treatment of the perfectly legitimate issue of the divergence of the exit polls with the reported results in NH, that in dealing with the management of DU, those of us who get together not so much as merely Obama supporters, but over a longer term, anti-swarmists, have our work cut out for us at DU).

And now, for the longer version of these comments (LOL)

:grouphug:

[maddiejoan]

66. must be a snug fit

on your tinfoil hat

[cloudythescribbler]

78. archtypical troll response

[maddiejoan]

79. yes

your wild loop of illogical speculation should be respected as valid on your say so.

[cloudythescribbler]

91. no, rather my arguments should be considered and responded to on the SUBSTANCE, not just with ...

playground like trollish insults. If the argument is an illogical loop (in your humble opinion) the NONtroll approach is to explain why you think so (you know -- evidence, arguments, syllogisms, all that kind of stuff)

[maddiejoan]

92. I found no substance in your post

sorry

[cloudythescribbler]

93. pure, lame cop out

typical of the nyaaah nyaaah nyaah school of trollagerie

[maddiejoan]

94. Thank you

now THAT at least had substance.

[papau]

76. Which is more numerous? - the answer actually is blacks in post NH primaries pre 2/5

[cloudythescribbler]

96. I recommend you check your math

BtW, an excellent poster named Katzenkavelier has put forward a series of posts about racism or "racismo" among his fellow Latinos that is well worth looking at in terms of the opportunities for driving a wedge between Latino and Black voters. (There's also a book by Earl Shorris called Latinos with a chapter on "Racismo", also of interest. These issues are very sensitive and note that you only really need to be able to swing a segment of any community to tip elections that are at all competitive. It is not necessary for the majority to be vulnerable to manipulation.

Same with white voters, who ARE the majority both in the NV caucuses and in both MI and FL (not to be overlooked) primaries.
If, say, 20% of Obama's white supporters decide either to vote HRC or just simply not to vote for Obama, then these venues could tip to her.

And this notion that the Clinton couple 'know not what they do' is about as believable as the tobacco companies trying to present cigarette smoking as glamorous and healthy

(Of course, the so-utterly-separate-from-the-HRC-campaign-I-could-spit disenfranchisement geared lawsuit in NV could interfere with that aspect of the HRC strategy).

[ellacott]

73. You all keep saying that Obama's camp is trying to do this

This is a fallacy. Most of the reactions have come from people who have no connection to Obama's campaign. Sometimes I think people keep perpetuating this fallacy because they really don't want to discuss this issue.

I know this will have to be repeated and still won't be received but people aren't calling the Clintons racists. This is one of the problems. We falsely label these issues because it doesn't appear that anyone wants to address them.

[maddiejoan]

82. So the memo was what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

[ellacott]

85. They ARE politicizing race

but that doesn't mean they're racists.

[maddiejoan]

86. they are not even doing THAT

and your distinction doesn't hold water.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4062088&mesg_id=4062088

[ellacott]

87. That's because you refuse to understand

You all are too loose with that word.

[fletcherwalker]

41. Why, that makes as much sense as the Clintons being racists!

Maybe it's all a big game by the main stream media to have something to talk about every day. Too bad Obama didn't have the smarts to call it like it is. Remarks taken out of context to make nasty news.
The pundits are lapping it up. Now they're actually going pro-Hillary. That won't last long.
This is why the Clintons avoided the press to begin with. Obama may learn that you only get to be the golden boy for as long as it sell ad space.
They may even make him the POTUS. That's if the second week in November is his "good" news cycle.
Walker

[durrrty libby]

42. maddiejoan is correct. This is BO's strategy and it will blow up

in his face:nuke:

[cloudythescribbler]

64. Total BS -- I explain it more fully in comment #59

[Renew Deal]

6. Your argument would be wrong.

:shrug:

[maddiejoan]

9. Obama's campaign

is attempting to paint Hillary as a racist prior to SC.

What do you think that's about?

[Renew Deal]

14. Obama's campaign hasn't said much about it.

Hillary's campaign is making these statements and blaming Obama for their notoriety.

[maddiejoan]

delete dupe

[maddiejoan]

26. uh huh

the mock outrage over distorted remarks by anyone even marginally associated with the Clinton camp is almost deafening.

[Renew Deal]

32. Blame the media.

They're the ones reprinting the remarks. But even Hillary's supporters will tell you Bob Johnson's BS is over the line.

[maddiejoan]

34. So was McClurkin's

but Obama supporters defend that.

[Renew Deal]

37. lol, so you lost that argument.

At least you acknowledge it.

[maddiejoan]

45. Not at all

I'm making a point.

If you are going to condemn Hillary for what a supporter says --than it is hypocritical to not condemn Obama for what McClurkin said.

[Renew Deal]

53. They were both wrong

:shrug:

[cloudythescribbler]

69. You confuse one person NOT A SPOKESPERSON or leading supporter w/ a PATTERN, reaching to the top ...

of the HRC campaign, including remarks by HRC dubbed by the ultratactful NY TIMES as "peculiar", and by BC (not the one about fairy tale, which I haven't fathomed myself, but the one about Nelson Mandela).

My grandfather used to love to quote a short ditty about arguments:

In arguing he ode a skill
For even though vanquished he could argue still

(unfortunately, the ditty is generic, and can of course be used by any side of any argument)

[maddiejoan]

80. I can form a pattern of behaviour

by cherry picking out of context quotes for anyone. Can't you?

[cloudythescribbler]

98. Recognizing a pattern of race-baiting behavior by the HRC campaign takes NO PROJECTION whatsoever ..

[maddiejoan]

102. Then why distort the statements?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4062088&mesg_id=4062088

[cloudythescribbler]

105. again with the solipsism -- assume your spin true, then reason from that

[maddiejoan]

89. read this

it might help you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4062088&mesg_id=4062088

[cloudythescribbler]

99. That internal memo was merely a press summary of an ONGOING MAJOR controversy

Lots of Obama-bashers have tried to read something sinister into it, all while ignoring the elephant in the room of the DELIBERATE AND PATTERNED race-baiting by the Clinton campaign.

Maybe you should read THIS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=4062025&mesg_id=4062025

[maddiejoan]

100. Then why does the internal memo

consist of distortions of facts.

It's not investigating a pattern, it's trying to establish one.

[cloudythescribbler]

104. It's important not to conflate an investigation whose conclusions YOU SUPPORT, with ...

whether it is basically an investigation and presentation of the facts as the people who drew it up see it.

I myself see the general stated or implied conclusions of the report as accurate

[Dawgs]

44. No they don't. Almost all, including me, admit it was wrong.

They do defend Obama's position on gay rights.

[maddiejoan]

48. And I condemn Bob Johnson's comment

though I don't think making a snark on Obama's admitted cocaine use is nearly as reprehensible as allowing McClurkin to speak out on his ex-gay philosophy in order to pander to homophobes.

[cloudythescribbler]

70. ALMOST all? I don't know of a SINGLE exception at DU

please provide a link if I am wrong (I might have missed it somehow)

[cloudythescribbler]

67. I have been one of the LEADING defenders of Obama on the 'McClurkin' thread in recent weeks & NEVER

have for a moment defended the content of McClurkin's remarks or beliefs. Nor have I to my recollection seen a SINGLE other post or thread that did so. This is a classic red-herring.

What I defend is that Obama's views on gays are COMPLETELY different from McClurkin, that Obama made that VERY clear, and that there is ABSOLUTELY no indication (as with the HRC camp and race-baiting) of ANY sort of pattern or intent to 'pander to homophobia' on the part of Obama or his campaign.

They had already invited a very popular gospel singer to sing at AND MC an event, and were posed with a difficult choice as to what to do when they were informed that this singer was unacceptable to many gays. It MIGHT have been handled better, but basically tells us more about the swarms of folk on DU protestating about it FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS than it does about Obama.

FWIW, I say this as someone bi.

[maddiejoan]

81. I have

and so have you. Don't be dishonest.

If I had a nickel for every "get over it", I'd be a wealthy woman.

[cloudythescribbler]

97. "You have" what? Found people defending McClurkin or saying "Get over it"? The latter ...

in the overall fact context has some merit and is NOT the same as defending McClurkin

[maddiejoan]

101. I have found people defending

Obama's use of McClurkin.

Damned right I have --in fact MOST Obama supporters do.

[cloudythescribbler]

106. Another typical ploy -- shifting the goalposts

Here is what was said, in response to a comment about a Clinton campaign SPOKESPERSON's "BS" being "over the line":

So was McClurkin's
but Obama supporters defend that.

VERBATIM CUT AND PASTE QUOTE of entire post

Now this statement, CLEARLY implied that Obama supporters were defending McClurkin's "BS". True, the word "that" leaves room for confusion and ambiguity, but there is no even hint of the distinction drawn in this statement.

Now, an open-ended reference to how Obama "used" McClurkin being defended. I don't know of anyone who says they agree with the contention (again solipsistically assumed true, true to form) that McClurkin was made MC with the self-conscious intent to appeal to homophobia, AND THAT SUCH A STRATEGY WAS CORRECT. I and others simply do NOT see any such deliberate strategy. Unlike with the race-baiting, no cogent argument that this was part of a patterned strategy has been put forward in the MANY MANY threads I've seen on this ONE incident.

So, once again, Obama supporters do not defend "that" whether "that" means (a)(as it obviously did in its context) "McClurkin's BS", or (b) Obama putting up someone to spout homophobia to appeal to that sentiment.

Obama CLEARLY stated his disagreement with at least homophobia, a public sentiment hardly rare among deeply religious gospel singers (though I hardly am in a position to claim it prevalent). Like other Obama supporters who defend Obama, I DENY that this was the strategic intent and in no way defend such an ALLEGED strategy.

This method of ASSUMING an accusation true and then reasoning from that assumption is very typical of trollagerie

[PATRICK]

19. I'd say

it is inescapable campaign pressure dealing with racial components in the coming states. They compete, pure and simple. It is going to be like a tea party?

The implication is that it is the dark or grim personal planning which uses negativity to affect the math. Anything that affects the math will come out in some form and when it comes out it will not politely or perfectly controlled. So far, nothing irreconcilable has even been approached, as unbelievable as that may sound to purists trying to tar one or the other candidate in person.

[burythehatchet]

63. Yes, Maddie that is Obama's strategy. He has a secret plan for increasing the

black electorate to about 60% by November to win the election.

[maddiejoan]

83. No

Painting Hillary as a racist would make her lose support across all racial divides.

Your depiction of it as a white vs black issue is a false picture.

[Frances]

2. The heading for your thread is flame bait

[Cameron27]

4. BS

[goldcanyonaz]

8. Oh goody, another whites vs. blacks thread.

:woohoo:

[Bad Thoughts]

15. It's a post about campaign tactics, not racial divisions

[desi]

30. No it's not.

It's an idiotic smear, plain and simple. WTF does an anonymous poster on DU know about a campaign's strategy?

[LoZoccolo]

10. How would Hillary benefit from that? n/t

[origin1286]

11. If Obama has 100% black support and Hillary even has 50+% whites...

Hillary wins in a landslide.

[LoZoccolo]

16. But she's starting with only roughly 50% of all voters to begin with.

To divide that group would cause her to lose the general election.

[origin1286]

22. Win now, deal with that later

is her strategy.

She'll try to reconcile if she gets the nom.

[desi]

39. So you are a Clinton 'insider" who knows or maybe even

sits in on her campaign's strategy sessions. Bull fucking shit...

[origin1286]

43. It's obvious

But it is just a theory. A damn good one, though.

[desi]

47. Theoretical Bullshit

is more like it. You aren't trying to pass off this crackpot "theory" of yours as coming from Ras are you? btw, how about a link to those Ras numbers...

[cloudythescribbler]

72. so what you're implying is: ordinary citizens (ones highly political) can't discern HRC's strategy

if you explore the premises of your argument, they point to a very UNDEMOCRATIC view of the world

[Hello_Kitty]

38. That's exactly what's going to happen if she keeps it up.

She win the primary and lose the general because blacks and other ethnic minorities may sit it out. African Americans represent 15 million votes and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. That's extremely important because repuke candidates enjoy a substantial advantage with white voters, which has probably diminished somewhat after the * admin but I don't think the gap has been bridged just yet. With Hillary Clinton's high negatives among white repuke and independent voters she is playing a fool's game by pursuing this strategy. Selecting her as our frontrunner was stupid to begin with, given all her baggage, but now she's alienating a core supporter group. Dumb dumb dumb.

[cloudythescribbler]

71. see my explanation comment #59

[RoveRage]

12. And we hand yet another election to the criminals.

[Maribelle]

17. The party is not split. These are the primaries. .

Hillary bashers should stop this race nonsense.

[cloudythescribbler]

74. It isn't "nonsense" from "Hillary-bashers" but swarms of protestating

Obama bashers that there is on DU .............

(not to claim the ABSOLUTE absence of ANY pro-Obama trolls .....)

[zozosmom]

20. You mean OBAMA's strategy

and it's backfiring on him

[SaveElmer]

21. You mean Obama's strategy to pry away the African American vote from Hillary

eom

[origin1286]

25. Your argument makes no sense

Why would you pry away a group who is by far in the voting minority at the sacrifice of the group you NEED to win?

[cloudythescribbler]

75. Furthermore, w/Oprah & others, Obama was already beginning to consolidate black support

as shown by polls from BEFORE this controversy exploded to its present level around the time of the NH primary......

[BOSSHOG]

24. If there is such a strategy it will pale compared to the greatest such political strategy ever

when the republican party split the American populace between smart people and stupid people. An unabashed success for sure.

[Adelante]

27. Link, please

We have DU archives to think of.

[ProSense]

29. First you claimed: "Hillary doesn't give a damn if Obama has 100% black vote. " Now this?

Hillary doesn't give a damn if Obama has 100% black vote.

[origin1286]

31. She doesn't

Think about it.

Which gives you more votes: 50% white vote or 100% black vote?

[ProSense]

35. Thanks for your concern! n/t

[still_one]

33. and why not, she won't have to talk about her war votes /nt

[ShortnFiery]

46. If such a smarmy strategy does work as Uncle Karl Rove advises, then we're all SCREWED.

Can't people see that the RNC and DLC have fine tuned SMEAR MACHINES?

Isn't it a little disconcerting to allow the M$M, KKKarl Rove (debasing Obama, the man) and Bloomberg (may run to help HRC bleed off Republican votes) TELLING US how to cast our votes?

Isn't it time for Americans to stop listening to the political ruling class TV strategists (both parties) and truly vote the issues?

[origin1286]

49. Won't happen

People follow parties like they're football teams. They root for them no matter what. DU is a perfect example.

And those that don't are typically too apathetic to bother with politics anyway. When they do, they base it on what the media tells them.

[ShortnFiery]

56. Then, if your narrative proves correct, the USA will fully realize a *right wing duopoly.*

When there's no THIRD PARTY to keep the power elites honest, only those with an accumulated wealth portfolio of over $300,000 will benefit as we usher forth "The Rapture" through arrogance and stupidity. :nuke:

http://www.counterpunch.org/kuzminski08182004.html

It has always been madness to try to remold the world in one's image, as we see most recently in the war in Iraq, but it is a vastly greater madness in a nuclear age. The lesson of 9/11 was that resentments born of decades if not centuries of perceived wrongs will find their target if those wrongs are not addressed. The ultimate equalizer, in our time, is the nuclear bomb and this the terrorists will sooner or later obtain and use if they continue to be provoked. This will be the final, bitter fruit of the loss of our political freedom, and it will be made the ultimate justification for the tyranny now established upon us.

[Skidmore]

68. You really believe that?

[cloudythescribbler]

77. It is also tactically imperative HERE for authentic progressives to address the presence of SWARMS

of DUers who are ready to put forward or embrace spurious arguments, in THIS situation, Obama-bashers

(To be honest, I'd noticed this some even before the election campaign 2008 -- but it is MUCH more obvious now)

It is also something that happens in progressive venue after venue -- Berkeley CA, WBAI, the reborn sds/mds

It's part and parcel of the dynamics of politics at the astroturf roots in the real America of our time

[GalleryGod]

65. Big Dawg will be MOVING his Office soon, too.

What a devisive couple...:puke:

[jenmito]

84. I think Hillary's strategy is backfiring according to Rassmussen's poll...

Clinton is only leading among White voters by 14% while Obama is leading among Black voters by 50%.

[demo dutch]

88. self delete

[demo dutch]

90. Have we not learned anything? Both candidates need to calm down, or it's going to hurt the Dems in

general & the coutry will get real tired of this real soon. This is exactly what the GOP is hoping for, fighting among ourselves while McCain will capitalize on this and present himself as the candicate can deal with the issues at large and unite the country.

[Barack_America]

95. It's like the tears...it can't be a long-lived strategy.

Sooner or later people are going to realize that they're hearing only one voice in this argument...Hillary's. And usually, the person who's talking the most in an argument is the person who started it.

She's overestimating how gullible the American people are.

[auburngrad82]

103. Clinton can't win without the black vote and Obama can't win without the whites

In the last 30 years the only two Dems to win the White House were Carter and Clinton. And both of them had a great turnout among African American voters.

It doesn't matter who we nominate. We need voters from all races and economic backgrounds, and yes, like it or not, independents, in order to win.